35 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Kotzi, on 08 July 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:

I thought ECM would be a bubble around the mech and any mech in that bubble cant be locked on. BAP counters this at 240m. ECM on counter does that within the ECM range. There was a time when BAP didnt counter ECM?

Yes, there was a time when BAP didn't counter ECM. Up until 2014, if I am not mistaken. It was bit of a hell, with hit-reg shielded ECM Ravens and Spiders running rampant, and my poor Streakcat trying to find a 30 meter window (between 150-180 meter range) to be able to shoot off its weapons under enemy ECM. Of course, LRM boats had it worse, as well.

[Gattsus]

Mcgral18, on 08 July 2016 - 03:05 AM, said:

Range for what?


They counter the Jesus Box to 240M, both
The 120/150 distance is to detect shut down mechs.

I thought that the 120/150m were for ECM countering...

[El Bandito]

Gattsus, on 08 July 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

I thought that the 120/150m were for ECM countering...

Nah, that's for detecting shut down mechs. I was confused. I believe the current range for ECM cancellation is 180 meters, not 240 meters as Mcgral said.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 July 2016 - 11:03 AM.

[Lykaon]

Gattsus, on 08 July 2016 - 02:12 AM, said:

Though, my main question/issue, is that I'm not so sure about its utility in LRM boats, because of the minimum range for LRMs. Thus, I was wondering if would you consider reasonable to extend its range, maybe the IS version 120->150m, and Clan 150->180. The problem would be that streak-crows would eat alive lights, BUT it could help a lot Kintaros and other IS streak boats or Assaults that carry streaks against lights. Maybe buffing BAP in kintaros would be nice?

Here is how ECM effects LRM use.

Mechs within range of an ECM friendly to them can not be locked onto by LRMs. With this in mind we have TAG as a near mandatory "tax" on LRM use in order to tag an ECM covered target to attain a lock.

Another effect of ECM is a mech with LRMs that is within hostile ECM range can not get locks on any targets regardless of those targets being under ECM themselves. The enemy ECM in range of the LRM carrier jams the locks. With this in mind we have BAP/CAP as a near mandatory "tax" on LRM use to retain the ability to launch at distant target beyond the effective radius of the hostile ECM currently covering the LRM launcher mech.

So in as far as LRM use and ECM interactions we have TAG to lock targets at range that are protected by ECM yet outside of CAP/BAP counter range and we have CAP/BAP to counter ECM that is in close proximity to the launcher yet within the LRM minimum range.

At it's basic level we have about 2.5 tons and an energy hardpoint worth of equipment tax for wanting to use LRMs in mass when ECM is in play.

Add to this the actual performance of LRMs...

Missile lock warnings
AMS
Slowest projectile speed in the game
Lack of focused damage
lack of accuracy for larger launchers due to wide spread

We end up with a very situational weapon system that can be highly dependent on team work to play effectivley and in a PUG solo queue good luck with that.

[Moldur]

El Bandito, on 08 July 2016 - 02:38 AM, said:

Same deal with Clan NARC and IS NARC. Clan NARC is lighter and more compact than that of IS NARC, yet is superior in performance. Clan ECM is lighter and more compact than that of IS ECM but has same performance.

PGI should correct these and buff the IS equipments a long time ago for balance, lore be damned.

Yes yes. IS fan boys have been holding this stuff over everyone's head since times immemorial. Rightly so, I might add.

Clan XLs and all those examples are objectively superior to the IS counterpart, yet PGI wants balance to be 1:1 "equal but different" between IS and Clans. It is stupid. If PGI wants real 1:1 balance, then make it so. Having trade-offs with some equipment while others are strictly better invalidates their entire stance. What? Are we keeping lore alive? In MWO? HA. Yeah, we're keeping lore .0000001% alive at the cost of blatant balance issues. Cool. Good way to make a game.

[Jables McBarty]

El Bandito, on 08 July 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

Nah, that's for detecting shut down mechs. I was confused. I believe the current range for ECM cancellation is 180 meters, not 240 meters as Mcgral said.

There was a discussion about this in NPH recently, and the verdict was 240 for ECM countering by AP, which dovetails with my anecdotal experience.

http://mwomercs.com/...84-ecm-and-bap/

[Mcgral18]

El Bandito, on 08 July 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

Nah, that's for detecting shut down mechs. I was confused. I believe the current range for ECM cancellation is 180 meters, not 240 meters as Mcgral said.

Was 180
Was 360
Now 240

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeah, even though my initial understanding of how BAP/CAP countered ECM was wrong, 240m is not a big enough radius.

It should really be 500 or 600 meters so that it is a meaningful counter while still allowing ECM to affect LRM locks.

I am a strong advocate that detection options should always beat out stealth. I think the IW model should be like this: Baseline (normal detection conditions) -> Modifier (ECM) -> Counter/Check (BAP/CAP).

That kind of cyclical "returns-to-baseline" system allows for more meaningful choice in that it can be layered multiple times and players can determine how much investment they want to put into IW; and that investment is truly meaningful.

I also advocate a BAP/CAP hardpoint.

[LordNothing]

i think its ecm detection bubble needs to be like 350m los, 150m hidden.

[fat4eyes]

You always put BAP on an LRM mech because if you don't a single enemy ECM light can render 90% of your firepower useless without firing a shot. That ECM light can use you as a shield while fighting another one of your teammates, therefore holding down 2 of your team's mechs with 1 of theirs.

You can't have BAP's ECM counter range be too big. A 500 meter radius is a 1000 meter diameter, making a circle that is around 1/4 to 1/3 the size of the ENTIRE MAP. That isn't just a counter to ECM, that would make ECM nigh useless.

[DarthHias]

For one ton / one slot many of my Clan Mechs have it. Nice sideeffect: If a UAV is directly above the main body of your force you get a dorito. If I don´t have arm weapons and am in heavy fighting, I just lock it and most of the times one of my teammates realizes it´s there and shoots it down. On the rare occasions I bring out my Streakdog (FW if I think a Light wave may be coming) poor Dog can shoot down UAVs as soon they are locked

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

LordNothing, on 08 July 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

i think its ecm detection bubble needs to be like 350m los, 150m hidden.

Active Probe is supposed to be an advanced radar/sensor system. I don't think it should be reliant on LoS.

But the current values would be ok IF GECM/cECM were limited to the equipping 'Mech (that is, no bubble).

This would also allow the introduction of Angel ECM, which could then provide a bubble (as ECM now) but at the cost of greater tonnage.

[Random Carnage]

You'd be a brave man to argue against Mcgral when it comes to quoting MWO numbers 'n stats 'n stuff.

[Lykaon]

Ultimatley I would like to see a reversal of the BIZZARRO Battletech universe we live in where Active Probes counter ECM.


You see ECM in the source materiel (Battletech table top game) when used with level 2 rules set (the basic template of nearly every mechwarior game so far.) ECM had the following effects.

Prevented enemy NARC Active Probe Artemis FCS and C3 networks from functioning within the ECM effective radius.

ECM did not effect the ability to detect a mech under ECM cover
ECM did nothing to prevent missile locks with LRMs or Streaks
ECM had no effects on TAG or TAG effecting ECM.

An active probe did the following.

Allowed for the detection of hidden units within it's scanning radius. This would mean that passing within the active probe's range within proximity of an enemy unit that would otherwise not be seen (hidden by terrain or obstruction of using hidden units specials rules) would reveal the mech to the active probe.

So what does this mean for translation to MWo?

ECM should just function as a counter for

Active Probes
NARCs
Artemis

To represent the effects on shared targeting data (C3 networks) any mechs covered by ECM will not have it's paperdoll armor condition or loadout visable to anyone other than those mechs with direct LOS target lock on the mech. The only data available will be mech type and variant letter designation and pilot name.(and pilot name only to allow for transparency of account ownership in case of EULA violations and need to report exploitation of rules violations)

ECM should also increase lock on times for mechs locking missile weapons without themselves also having direct LOS. So using someone elses target lock for LRM indirect fire will trigger a longer lock timer. If instead you had LOS to the target lock on times would be uneffected by the ECM.

ECM can be toggled to counter mode or ECCM to counter the effects of the closest enemy disrupting ECM within the range of the ECCM. ECCM should have a greater range than disrupt mode.

NARC and Artemis will work as they do now but NARC will not counter ECM.
TAG will function as it does now except TAG will have no effects on ECM performance

PPC hits will disrupt the effects of any support electronics on the chassis struck for X amount of seconds. Support electronics include Atremis Active probes,ECM attached NARC Command consoles and clan targeting computers.

Active probes should be active probes that detect targets through obstructions. The functioning should be a mech with an active probe projects a scanning cone in it's forward arc out to the max range of the active probe (150m currently).Any enemy mechs within this scanned area are visable targets even if they are behind obstructions or other wise out of LOS.

Mech detected only by an Active probe scan and are not in actual LOS of an enemy mech do not display their armor paperdoll or loadout (much like free ECM effects)

Edited by Lykaon, 09 July 2016 - 01:29 AM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Lykaon:

This may be how it worked in TT, but it's overly complex and too much of a departure from what we already have in MWO.

The method of modifying and building on the mechanics and relationships we have now is much simpler and more effective.

[Pjwned]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 09 July 2016 - 03:15 AM, said:

@Lykaon:

This may be how it worked in TT, but it's overly complex and too much of a departure from what we already have in MWO.

The method of modifying and building on the mechanics and relationships we have now is much simpler and more effective.

Well, apparently something being broken and/or unbalanced for a couple years or more doesn't necessarily mean PGI won't get to it eventually maybe; the mech rescale being a perfect example of this.

"Hey PGI, the scaling on all these mechs is clearly screwed up and you should really fix it now before it becomes a big problem."
"Nah, you know what, have another mech pack instead and be a good goy."

[well over 2 years later]

"Hey you'll never guess what we're doing next guys! We're finally going to fix all our screwed up mechs with this huge rescale effort!"
"Cool, welcome to 2+ years ago, nice of you to catch up."

Just put enough constant pressure on PGI to fix their stupid **** and maybe it'll get done eventually; that or maybe somebody in management will snap and they'll be replaced by somebody that isn't a buffoon.